CASE TITLE:
Mt. Kulsumunn-Isan v. Khushnudi Begum And Anr.
DATE OF ORDER:
5th August 1953
BENCH:
Hon’ble Justice Brij Mohan Lall
PARTIES:
Petitioner- Mt. Kulsumunn-Isan
Respondents
Khushnudi Begum
SUBJECT:
A Comprehensive Analysis of the Mt. Kulsumunn-Isan v. Khushnudi Begum Case, With Special Attention to the Complexities of the Court Fees Act, Valuation Issues in Land Dispute Appeals, and the Effect of Market Value Determination on Court Fees Calculation.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
- Section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act 1870
- section 7(v) (I) (c) the Court-fees Act 1870
- Section 7 (v) (II) the Court-fees Act 1870
- Article 17 (vi) of Schedule 2 of the Court-fees Act 1870
- Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908
BRIEF FACTS:
- In the present case, an appeal was filed by the plaintiff under Sec 6A of the Court fees Act who claimed various relied involving a land dispute.
- Earlier the appellant instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge Agra to be given possession of the disputed land and dispossessing defendant 1 from demolition of the construction which was made unauthorizedly by her in particular portions of the disputed land.
- The suit relief was valued at Rs 6,000/-, the defendants stated their plea that the suit should be valued at Rs 60,000/-. Later according to the Commissioner ( who was appointed to estimate the subject matter of the said suit, it got valued at Rs 21,445/-.
- Both the parties stated their objections against the Commissioner’s report but the same got rejected by the Civil Judge and the appellant was ordered to pay the remaining amount of the suit’s relief. In response to this order, thus comes the plaintiff’s appeal. Additionally, the defendants filed a cross objection stating reasons that the market value should be fixed at Rs 60,000/-.
ISSUE:
In this case, the issue of whether the valuation of a land dispute appeal includes both the land and its buildings or only the land is explored along with the proper interpretation of the Court Fees Act, in particular Section 7 (v). The case also examines the difficulties in figuring out court costs, particularly in light of the determined market value.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:
- The learned Court first rejected the defendant’s contention stating Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure that cross- objection can only be taken in respect of that matter only which can be brought about by means of an appeal only if the respondent opts to do so. In matters of Court-fee our law as given the right to appeal only to the plaintiff and not the respondent. Additionally, he cannot file a cross-objection as it would result in circumvention of the law.
- Now coming to the appeal, it was ruled that in the present case Section 7 (v) of the Court-fees Act was applicable to the parties, but the sub-clause of this section became the point of contention to the parties. The appellant contended that the subject matter of the relief is only the land itself and not the building and thus the suit falls under section 7(v) (I) (c ). While on the other hand the respondent’s urge that the suit lies in Section 7 (v) (II) as the subject matter of the suit consists of both the lands and the buildings on it.
- The Court observed that the plaintiff came with the allegation that he only owns the land where the defendant have unlawfully taken its possession and constructed buildings on it, it has been pleaded by the former to deliver the land alone to him and the buildings to be removed. Therefore, the plaintiff does not desire possession of the buildings, thus the court fees cannot be levied with respect to the cost of buildings as per Section 7 (v). The Court cited the judgement in Jogal Kishor v. Tale Singh, 4 All 320 (A) where it was stated that- ‘the value of buildings on these two cases sought to be demolished is not taken into account in establishing the court-fees which is to be charged in the suit.’
- It was contemplated that in the present case the value of the buildings is to be excluded from consideration, I must record a finding that a separate court-fee must also be paid for the relief of demolition. That court-fee will not be paid under Section 7 (v) but under Article 17 (vi) of Schedule 2 of the Court-fees Act.
- The Court then answered on finding the market value of the disputed land, it was seen that the Commissioner in charge of making the report had overlooked the proper method of calculating the market value of the land as laid down under Section 7 (v) (I) (c) as he failed to multiply the net profits by twenty. It was held that where a statute has set down a special method for calculation of the market value that is done for a particular purpose and that method alone is to be followed.
CONCLUSION:
- The Learned judge cited that during the proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPc in which the appellant had previously acknowledged in a petition that the property was worth around Rs. 30,000. It was argued that because this admission was higher than the value established by a commissioner later in the case, it should be used against the appellant. The judge, however, rejected this defense. The property's market value of Rs. 30,000 was mentioned by the appellant in his admission, not the value for court costs. Market value and court costs may not be the same. Despite the appellant's admission, she did not necessarily accept that the court charge was worth Rs. 30,000.
- The judge thought that the Commissioner and the lower court handled the case incorrectly. The previous judgment of the court was reversed. The case was returned to the lower court with the directive to appropriately revalue the property in accordance with the law. Depending on the outcome, the appeal's fees will change. The other party's cross-objection was rejected, and they are now responsible for the expenditures.
